»SD>Big Posted January 12, 2004 Report Posted January 12, 2004 http://www.bushin30seconds.org/ watch all of them, pretty funny, but scary funny, cause it's true.
Bacchus Posted January 29, 2004 Report Posted January 29, 2004 lol, i was going to post that url try that also, it's instructive: Center for Public Integrity
The Cheetah Posted January 31, 2004 Report Posted January 31, 2004 TerroristTerroristTerrorist 9-119-119-11
Bacchus Posted January 31, 2004 Report Posted January 31, 2004 huh? And Moveon.org tried to buy a slot for the surperbowl...it was turn down by the CBC (?) because of the anti-bush content... GG freedom of speech and toughts!
Aileron Posted February 4, 2004 Report Posted February 4, 2004 Um, equal time laws actually promote freedom of speech, preventing one candidate with a lot of money from dominating too much. It is not the duty of television networks to take sides. They are supposed to remain nuetral. While the actual nuetrality of the media is debatable if it exists (which it doesn't), the perfect media network should be completely nuetral on politics. Thus, refusing the advertisment was ethical, and putting the advertisment on the air would have been unethical. This is probably one of the few times in history where a large company made an unprofitable ethical decision over a profitable unethical one. Sorry, but you are simply wrong on this issue.
Bacchus Posted February 4, 2004 Report Posted February 4, 2004 CBS didn't refuse because the pub was "unethical", they didn't turn moveon.org down because it was promoting other candidates. They turn it down because it was anti-bush like publicity. They actually took side, the bush side. The ad in question is simply a quick tour of the economic policies of the Bush administration, which moveon.org clearly disapprove. Censoring ideas belonging to a political debate is a threat to democracy imo...using fear of terrorist in a white house pub on drugs is close to demagogy and that should also be censored. Moveon.org wasn't helping any candidate, it was merely giving numbers about Bush's presidency. I believe the american citizens are en!@#$%^&*led to this kind of infos, those are critical in their democratic practice. btw, CBS makes a lot of money selling air time to political msgs, why did they refused it for the superbowl? Here's some article about those medias which "allegedly" run a no advocacy policy: poli-bowl from BostonAnti-Bush ad by Chicago tribuneFrom rep. Bernie Sanders plz notice it all comes from media reform site but those are all quotes from other medias. here you'll find the press communiqué (spl) and the ad:http://www.moveon.org/news/2278.html
Aileron Posted February 5, 2004 Report Posted February 5, 2004 I didn't say the pub itself was unethical, I said taking a side was. To not take a side, one must try to either not advertise either candidate or advertise both at about the same amount. Usually however, a candidate's money is as good as anyones. However, in the case of the Superbowl - the most desired advertising time in the year, considerations like these must be made. You speak as if those numbers are hidden, and that the presence of numbers makes the advertisment impartial. What, do you think that the pro-Bush crowd don't have their own numbers to back their opinions up? The presence of supporting numbers do not make an opinion impartial, they merely make it logical.
Bacchus Posted February 5, 2004 Report Posted February 5, 2004 By censoring CBS did take a side. This was a paid for aired commercial not a "hater" message, nor was it targeting an ethnic or religious group. It had the same legitimacy to be aired as say...the White House msg, or Bud pub. The fact that now CBS created a precedent only proves what kind of powers the media have over YOUR country. CBS just said "hey, look...we're the one deciding for YOU what's good for you to know or not" and this decision isn't based on law or human rights and so forth...it's a decision that have been made by a CEO and a private company commitee. aren't you at least a bit flustered?
Aileron Posted February 7, 2004 Report Posted February 7, 2004 First off, the media has been making that "decision" as you call it since the 80's (the 1880's), so I and most of the intelligent population have gotten used to it and have learned to take all information with a grain of salt. Secondly, you talk as if its in CBS's goal to push a political viewpoint. CBS is a company, and companies make money. There is probably no limit to the immoral things a company will do, but any action they take will lead to the ultimate goal of them making money. They do not purposely take sides in political battles, because there is no profit in that. As with all things, there are exceptions, but one can bank on the media not intentionally taking sides unless profit is involved. Ultimately, CBS decided it would be more profitable over the long term not to aire the commercial than to aire it. As a private company, they have the right to do this, and since this isn't a repeated pattern, there is no fear of one side not getting their message off. By censoring CBS did take a side. First off, this is not technically censoring. But secondly, you seem to not know where exactly the center is. Finding the exact center is difficult; everyone has their own personal bias one way or the other. The only way that one can be absolutely in the center is to not say anything. Thus, that's what they did. They didn't aire any anti-Bush commercials, but they didn't really aire any pro-Bush ones either, and wouldn't be able to justify it if they did. Thus, all CBS did was to make a rule "no politcal ads during the Superbowl". It is rather arbitrary, but it is a fair policy if not abused. If CBS decided to host a pro-Bush commercial, and then denied the anti-Bush commercial, it would be wrong. However, they didn't.
Bacchus Posted February 7, 2004 Report Posted February 7, 2004 ah yes..you are a right wing republican, i'm a left wing democrat. freedom of press and speech in your case is overruled by private/mercantile rights... in other words, what i find outrageous, you'll find at least tolerable on the basis that private property overules pretty much anything regarding things not related to economy. This discussion is over.
Kadith Posted February 7, 2004 Report Posted February 7, 2004 Gawd. It's a simple fact that they don't want to make people sick watching politically motivated propaganda while they are trying to have some fun watching the superbowl. Makes sense to me.
SVS Posted February 8, 2004 Report Posted February 8, 2004 I would think a left wing democrat would not want the popularity of the super bowl used as an avenue to manipulate the voting will of the american people.
Bacchus Posted February 9, 2004 Report Posted February 9, 2004 in the case of disinformation (like the whole thing on WMD) or misinformation (like linking the use of drugs to supporting terrorists network), yea...i don't want to see the superbowl (or any other media) air some bs political material. But i think that informations (accurate, from both republicans and democrats) can and should be aired by any media at any given moment. I also think that air time should be given to any recognize political party as they do in a lot of other countries. now, it looks like Miss Jackson's ASSS worth more than a 500B deficit. which is a bit ridiculous...
Recommended Posts